Saving Bayonne Was a Good Deal for Chris Christie

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

June 12, 2014

The purchase of 131 acres along the waterfront of Bayonne, N.J., in 2010 was a fabulous bargain for the seller, the struggling city of Bayonne, and a windfall for New Jersey’s governor, Chris Christie. It was not such a good deal for the buyer — the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

As Russ Buettner wrote in The Times this week, the Bayonne boondoggle was one of the earliest examples of the way Mr. Christie’s appointees on the bistate authority used it to prop up New Jersey’s finances, forcing it to shoulder costs that would normally be borne by the New Jersey state treasury.

Mr. Christie’s people persuaded the authority’s commissioners to pay $235 million for land that was probably worth a third of that amount. The sale saved Bayonne from bankruptcy. And it spared Mr. Christie from spending many millions in state funds to keep the city afloat.

The Bayonne acreage was clearly not meant to enhance the agency’s bottom line. As one Port Authority official told The Times, the purchase was “a straightforward fiscal bailout of Bayonne” in return for land that was “worth nothing to the authority.”

That transaction is an almost perfect example of what’s wrong with the way governors of New York and New Jersey have, over the years, used the agency to serve their own political needs, effectively cheating millions of people who use the authority’s facilities. Controlled by the governors of both states, the Port Authority owns bridges, ports, airports, tunnels and other properties vital to the metropolitan area. Its financing comes from tolls and fees. And if the agency loses money — as on real estate deals — tolls and fees go up for everyone.

Mr. Christie and Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York have said the authority must change the way it does business. That promise is particularly important coming from Mr. Christie. In recent months, his administration has been reeling from the George Washington Bridge traffic jam engineered last year as a form of political revenge. Four of his top appointees to the authority — including its chairman, David Samson — have resigned as a result of investigations growing out of the bridge scandal and other problems.

Any reform starts with the two governors, who must make sure that they appoint qualified commissioners, not political cronies. The board should make every action public, including debates before votes. Any conflicts of interest should be disclosed early and in detail.

The authority’s board members say they are considering necessary changes. Among these should be a requirement that the commissioners choose their executive director, who would then choose a deputy and other employees. In recent years, with each governor selecting key people, the institution has split into two battling forces, with many employees giving priority to the wishes of a governor rather than the region.

Finally, the Legislatures in both states must pass identical reform bills. These laws should make it clear that the allegiance of anyone working for the Port Authority must lie with the agency, not the governor who provided the job.